Skip to main content

View Diary: Woman Being Denied Citizenship Because Her Morality Doesn’t Come From Religion (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's simply down to the size of the outcry (10+ / 0-)

    that's all.  What they want is to be able to say "if there's a draft we can't tell the difference between people who genuinely do resist out of a moral objection to killing versus people who are just afraid and are pretending conscientious objector status to escape the draft.  Therefore we want to make it as hard as possible to be a conscientious objector, and nothing the person themselves says is good enough because people can lie about it and we wouldn't know.  Since there'd be an outcry not only from pacifists but also from non-pacifist religious groups if pacifist religious groups were forced to fight, we'll make an exception for them and them only."

    That's really all there is to it.  They don't want conscientious objector status to be easy for everyone to claim as that would render a draft completely unenforceable.  So they (wrongly) think that making a church leader have to back you up is a good roadblock to put in place, forgetting that in the case of atheists this has the opposite effect, of making it so that the honest conscientious objector atheists are less likely to be able to obtain the status than the dishonest ones.  The dishonest ones could always bite their  tongue and join a pacifist church and pretend to believe a religion they don't as a way to escape a draft.

    But all that aside, I find it repugnant that "I will submit to a draft" is even part of the citizenship statements anyway, given that we don't make a special case out of the hundreds of OTHER laws a person is expected to be required to obey upon becoming a citizen.  We don't have a bit that says "and if I'm called  for jury duty I promise I won't try to get out of it", or "I will pay the required amount of taxes", for example.  Someone who objects to THOSE things doesn't have to make promises to the contrary under oath.

    •  Drafts SHOULD be uneforceable. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DSPS owl, cocinero

      No one who doesn't want to join the military should ever be forced to, regardless of whether the reason is fear. Military conscription for war is an anti-human form of slavery that is best left in our past. And as far as I'm concerned, any country that has to resort to it isn't worth defending. I would leave rather than be coerced to fight in an unjust war, as I think that human life matters more than the existence of any nation.

      On the other hand, I don't think all war is unjust. Sometimes there are times where waging war is the proper thing to do for humanity as a whole. But making a judgement about whether I agree with the goals and conduct of any specific war enough to risk my own life should be MY choice, not the government's. Individuals should always have the right to control their own lives, even if that means that wars are sometimes lost, because humanism overrides nationalism in my personal morality.

      I don't even understand why the government would WANT anyone who objects to war in the military against their will. I know if I was in that situation, I'd do everything I could to undermine the war.

    •  It's just a stupid requirement. (0+ / 0-)

      There is no draft, and there will be no draft. It's like asking if you would be willing to help round up unicorns.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (64)
  • Elections (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Culture (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Economy (17)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Rescued (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site